We know that the two cases were similar, only the means of attack differed. The Court has certainly noticed this and has asked for a short, concise supplemental briefing.

The State now argues that the other case is controlling and that oral arguments are no longer necessary.

The Appellants/Plaintiffs argue that the State cannot make the same arguments they made at the other case, as they do issue permits to 18-20 year olds who are military. They briefly state that the other panel was wrong (see Halbrook's article, linked above).

Thanks for this update go to Krucam (MDShooters), as I completely missed it.